Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 244 (JHR)

Sujan & Company v. State of Bihar

2003-02-21

TAPEN SEN

body2003
JUDGMENT Tapen Sen, J.-Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned Government Advocate for the State Respondents. 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.7.1995 passed by the Assistant Mining Officer, Koderma (Respondent No.3) by which the Petitioner has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 12,018.55 Paise and Rs. 5,147.87 Paise against dues on account of dead rent and cess till 1993 in respect of 40 acres of land in the Koderma Reserve Forest Work No. 28 “T" (B). According to the Petitioner, the aforesaid order is not only contrary to the provisions of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 but is also contrary to the order dated 17.12.1993 passed by the District Mining Officer-cum-Certificate Officer (Mining) North Chotanagpur Circle, Hazaribagh (Respondent No.2). 3. The case of the Petitioner in short is that on 1.3.1984 a deed of mining lease was executed in favour of the Petitioner for a period of 20 years for the aforementioned tract. After execution however, the Petitioner came to a conclusion that the area was not at all economically viable for Mica mining and finding the project to be non viable, it accordingly filed an application on 27.06.1986 under registered cover addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (Respondent No.4) together with advance rent and royalty for the period up to 30.06.1987 surrounding (sic-surrendering?) the lease hold. According to the Petitioner, it has also delivered vacant possession of the land to the State Lessor. 4. In spite of the aforementioned facts, the Petitioner states that the State of Bihar through the Respondent No. 3 filed two certificate cases against the Petitioner vide Certificate Case Nos. 50/99-93 and 51/9293. In the first case the Lessor demanded a sum of Rs. 6,019.35 Paise for the period of up to 31.12.1992 towards dead rent and interest. In the other case, a sum of Rs. 4098.02 Paise was demanded. 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the application for surrender was filed on 27.06.1986 along with one year's advance rent and royalty up to 30.6.1987 and therefore, the Respondents could not have initiated the certificate proceedings at all for a period beyond the date on which the application has been filed for surrender. The Petitioner draws attention of this Court to the order dated 07.12.1993 and 17.12.1993 passed by the Certificate Officer (Annexure-2) to the Writ Application. The Petitioner draws attention of this Court to the order dated 07.12.1993 and 17.12.1993 passed by the Certificate Officer (Annexure-2) to the Writ Application. The said order discloses that the Certificate Officer himself came to a conclusion that the Petitioner having filed an application for surrender on 27.06.1986 together with advance rent and royalty for a period of one year therefore, the demand of dead rent, cess and interest etc. was not proper. Having so held, the Certificate Officer returned the file to the office of the Assistant Mining Officer, Koderma (Respondent No.3). According to the Petitioner, in spite of the aforementioned order, all of a sudden it received a demand notice dated 4.7.1995 issued from the office of the Respondent No. 3 demanding the rent along with interest and cess as stated above vide Annexure-3. 6. Mr. R. S. Mazumdar, learned Government Advocate has drawn attention of this Court to paragraph 7 of the Counter Affidavit and has attempted to justify the demand, made against the Petitioner. He has further submitted that the lease was, in fact, declared lapsed by the Government on 10.12.1993 (paragraph 8 of the Counter Affidavit) and hence the lease was deemed to be valid up to December, 1993 and therefore the demand was genuine, legal and payable by the Petitioner. 7. This Court rejects the aforementioned contention of the learned Government Advocate for two reasons. Firstly, the Petitioner not only filed the application for surrender on 27.06.1986 but along with it, it also deposited one year's advance rent and royalty till 30.6.1987. The Government had no right to sit over that application till 1993. The action of the Government, therefore, is not at all reasonable. In fact, it is arbitrary. 8. Secondly, the submissions of the learned Government Advocate cannot be held to be maintainable or sustainable in view of the provisions of Rule 29 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. "29. The Government had no right to sit over that application till 1993. The action of the Government, therefore, is not at all reasonable. In fact, it is arbitrary. 8. Secondly, the submissions of the learned Government Advocate cannot be held to be maintainable or sustainable in view of the provisions of Rule 29 of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960. "29. Restrictions of determination of lease.-4[(1)] The lessee shall not determine the lease except after notice in writing of not less than twelve calendar months to the State Government or to such officer, or authority as the State Government may specify in this behalf: 5[Provided that where a lessee holding a mining lease for a group of minerals applies for the surrender of any mineral from the lease on the ground that deposits of that mineral have since exhausted or depleted to such an extent that it is no longer economical to work the mineral, the State Government may permit the lessee to surrender that mineral, subject to the following conditions, namely :(a) the lessee applies for such surrender of mineral at least 6 months before the intended date of surrender; and (b) the lessee gives an undertaking that he will not cause any hindrance in the working of the mineral so surrendered by any other person who is subsequently granted a mining lease in respect of that mineral:] 1 [Provided further that where a lessee applies for the surrender of the whole or a part of lease-hold area on the ground that such area is barren or the deposits of minerals have since exhausted or depleted to such an extent that it is no longer economical to work in such area, the State Government shall permit the lessee, from the date of receipt of the application, to surrender that area if the following conditions are satisfied, namely:- (a) the leasehold area to be surrendered has been properly surveyed and is contiguous, (b) the lessee has paid all the dues payable to the Government under the lease up to the date of application, and 2[* * *]] 3[Provided also that surrender of the lease area by the lessee shall be permitted only thrice during the period of the lease on fulfilling the conditions- (i) that at least a period of five years has elapsed since the last surrender; and (ii) that the provisions of the mining plan including the environment management plan thereof have• been complied with.] 4[(2) Every application for the surrender of a part of lease-hold area in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (1), shall be accompanied by a deposit of two hundred rupees for meeting the expenditure for the purpose of survey and demarcation of the area to be surrendered: Provided that the lessee shall deposit such further amount, not exceeding two hundred rupees, as may be demanded by the State Government for meeting any additional expenditure for the said purpose within one month from the date of demand of such deposit: Provided further that where the whole or any part of the amount deposited has not been expended, it shall be refunded to the lessee] 5[within two months from the date of completion of the work of survey and demarcation of the are to be surrendered.]" 9. The second proviso to the aforementioned Rule 29 clearly gives an option to a lessee to apply for surrender on various grounds including that it is not economical. Once such an application is filed, it becomes mandatory on the part of the State Government to permit the lessee, from the date of receipt of the application, to surrender that area if condition numbers (a) and (b) appended to the said second proviso are fulfilled. 10. In the instant case there is nothing on record to suggest that the Petitioner had not complied with the aforementioned sub clauses (a) and (b) appended to the second proviso. On the contrary, the order of the Certificate Officer discloses that there was total compliance on the part of the Petitioner. 11. For the reasons stated above, this Writ Petition must succeed and consequently impugned demands are hereby quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed. There shall however be no orders as to costs.